California v. Hodari D.

The ruling established that if a person avoids or resists police efforts at apprehension, then seizure of the person has not occurred and Fourth Amendment protections do not apply. Police must apply physical force or the suspect must respond to restraint willingly for a seizure to occur and the person to be under protections of the amendment. The decision gave greater discretion to government officials in approaching suspected individuals and collecting evidence incidental to such encounters. Some feared that, with knowledge of very few actual facts, police could act much more arbitrarily in their efforts to interrogate people on the street, particularly by chasing them if they try to avoid contact.

The Fourth Amendment ensures the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizures." Such privacy can not be violated and no warrants can be issued unless "probable cause" is shown, supported by an oath or affirmation. The warrant must specifically describe the place to be searched and things to be seized. The amendment only applies to searches and seizures conducted by the government. The Supreme Court in Katz v. United States (1967) broadened Fourth Amendment protections by asserting if an individual targeted by the search expects privacy then protections apply.

Fourth Amendment protections also guard against unreasonable governmental seizures of citizens themselves. However, courts normally applied common law standards in upholding the right of police officers to take people into custody without warrants. The police must have probable cause to believe the person seized committed a criminal offense. The probable cause must be satisfied by information discovered prior to the police officer's stop. Information discovered afterward is not sufficient to retroactively establish probable cause. Following the Court's decision in Terry v. Ohio (1968), the standard for stopping individuals for investigative purposes evolved into one of "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity." This test allowed some stops and questioning without probable cause in order for police officers to explore the basis of their suspicions. Fourth Amendment protection did not come into effect until a physical "seizure" occurred. The Terry Court recognized that "not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves `seizures' of persons."It suggested that only when the officer, by "means of physical force or show of authority," has in some way restricted the liberty of a citizen that a "seizure" has occurred. Later, in United States v. Mendenhall (1980), Justice Stewart proposed a standard stating that a person has been seized "only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave." This standard, adopted by the Court three years later in Florida v. Royer (1983), became the Mendenhall-Royer test.

Late one evening in April of 1988, two city police officers were on patrol in an unmarked police car in a high-crime area of Oakland, California. A group of black youths, including Hodari D., fled as the police vehicle approached. One officer, wearing a jacket with "Police" written on its front, left the car to give chase on foot.

The officer did not follow Hodari directly, but took a different route bringing the two face to face on the next street. Hodari looking back as he ran, did not turn to see the officer until the officer was almost upon him. At that moment, Hodari tossed away a small rock. The officer tackled Hodari and recovered the rock which proved to be crack cocaine. Hodari was subsequently arrested by the officers and charged with possession of illegal narcotics.

Hodari filed a motion to suppress the cocaine evidence prior to juvenile proceedings. He argued the drugs were the result, the "fruit," of an illegal seizure violating the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure clause. The circuit court denied Hodari's motion to suppress the evidence and found him guilty of the illegal narcotics possession charge.

Hodari appealed the conviction to the California State Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's verdict by finding that Hodari had been "seized" when he saw the police officer running toward him. Such a seizure was considered "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment since the state of California conceded the officer did not have the "reasonable suspicion" required to justify stopping Hodari. Therefore, the evidence of cocaine, being the fruit of an illegal seizure, had to be suppressed as Hodari had argued. The state of California next appealed the court's decision to the California Supreme Court which denied the application. The U.S. Supreme Court then granted certiorari, a written order commanding a lower court to forward the proceeding of the case for the Court's review.